NT-0627 (仅有阅读和听力）-阅读-NT-0627 Reading 2

真题还原：
Corporate Charitable Giving
It is sometimes suggested that large multinational companies have a moral obligation to “give back” to the communities that they serve in the form of charitable donations. Bottom line profits regularly exceed multiple billions of dollars even during periods of increasing and widespread unemployment; this seeming contradiction amplifies the need for the largest companies to take a more active role in contributing to the economic welfare of the people living in the markets in which they operate. Proponents of charitable giving argue that companies should reach out and create strong corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs as a matter of policy. CSR is a term that became popular in the 1960s and is still used today to describe the legal and moral code governing the types of activities in which companies often engage.
CSR has evolved over the last twenty years into a formal business function inside many corporations. At least part of the reason for this phenomenon has to do with pragmatic considerations. People who believe that companies should give to charity often point to the intangible but very real practical benefits that result from the corporation taking actions that promote the greater good. Some of these intangible benefits include increased brand value, positive publicity, and general popularity. Believers in the importance of corporate charitable giving often go a step further, however. They insist that beyond mere pragmatics, a company is morally bound to act charitably because communities at large allow a company to operate and exist in the first place. Scarce community resources, including tax revenue and real estate, are allocated to the construction and creation of roads and bridges that enables a company to make money. Arguably, companies can disproportionately benefit financially from the use of these roads and bridges over time. Due to the inherently unequal relationship that exists between a company and the community in which it operates, a corporation should prioritize charitable giving to show its commitment to the welfare of the people who allow it to flourish.
People who do not believe that a company should give to charity as official company policy typically point to purely economic arguments for why a company should not engage in “non-core” activities. They assert that from a purely capitalistic perspective, a company should only engage in activities and actions through which the company can make money; hence, for them, conducting a formal CSR program is economically inefficient. The return on investment from running a CSR department or division, these opponents would argue, is therefore negative. To counter this argument and line of thinking, staunch proponents of CSR point to the fact that historically speaking, socially responsible companies—especially those that donate regularly to charity—typically generate greater value over time to their shareholders compared to those that do not.
One example of a socially responsible company that other firms sometimes emulate is the McDonald’s Corporation. With a global footprint and instantly recognizable brand, McDonald’s serves millions of people the world over with fast food at relatively affordable prices. The company has contributed to numerous charities that re-allocate a material portion of its profits back to the people being served. McDonald’s also runs a formal charity, The Ronald McDonald House, which provides close to $300 million per year in benefits to hospitalized children and needy families. McDonald’s clearly recognizes its moral obligation to the communities it serves and at the same time continually ranks as one of the most economically successful brands in the world.
CSR continues to be a contentious topic among economists, businessmen, and government leaders. The fine line that exists between what a company should and should not do can move with subtle changes in public discourse, the political climate, and market swings. In an economy driven by bottom line profits, opponents of charitable giving are often able to shape corporate policy, particularly during times of financial hardship. However, given the reliance on customers in the community and the over-allocation of common resources that tends to benefit companies disproportionately well, others continue to insist that a moral obligation exists for corporations to uphold strong and sustainable CSR programs regardless of the economic climate. ■ (A) Indeed, economic downturns that impact markets around the world every few years lead to increasing unemployment and many communities stumbling from one financial crisis to another. ■ (B) At the same time, the largest corporations still post record profits totaling billions of dollars and demonstrate how unequal the relationship between a company and its community can be. ■ (C) For this reason, the possible moral obligation of companies to help the communities that allowed them to thrive in the first place becomes even more pronounced. ■ (D)According to its supporters, CSR at its core is about fairness, and companies should be treated no differently than anyone else when it comes to issues of justice.

1. The word amplifies in the passage is closest in meaning to
○ defines
○ counters
○ magnifies
○ presents

2. Which of the following best expresses the essential information in the highlighted sentence? Incorrect answer choices change the meaning in important ways or leave out essential information.
○ Over the past two decades, corporate attitudes toward charity have significantly altered.
○ Only in very recent history has CSR become important to companies in the U.S.
○ Over time, charitable work has increasingly been formally incorporated into businesses.